Energy Reform Series: Part 4-The Economics of a Carbon Tax

Considering the rise fossil fuel emissions, especially those of carbon dioxide, something ought to be done in the form of policy change to promote reduction of pollution.  In this post, we will look at one idea, a carbon tax, which would be imposed on industry to promote reduction in fossil fuel use.

Taxes would be levied on carbon use.  Energies such as coal or gasoline would have a much higher rate than solar or wind power.  These clean sources of power would likely not be taxed at all.  Firms have a strong incentive to adopt whatever new technology is necessary to reduce their carbon footprint.

The draw of a carbon tax over Cap and Trade is its simplicity.  Cap and Trade involves the buying and selling of carbon credits with other companies.  The Carbon Tax simply levels a tax on carbon use on all companies.  This would also mean a carbon tax could be implemented much more quickly than a cap and trade system. From a government's perspective, the carbon tax could be more beneficial, as it supplies additional revenue to their coffers.

However, this could also mean higher energy prices for consumers.  The government might have more money, but one way to get around tax for energy companies would be to simply raise rates.  This could be a very negative effect of trying to fix a very important problem.

One way to solve this problem is to change the way the money is allocated once it is collected from the polluters.  Since households would be paying more, it makes sense to alleviate them of a burden that was supposed to be placed on major polluters.

To do this, the government would use the money collected to pay out benefits or provide tax breaks to households that would bear a burden from paying the higher rates.  This makes the whole system revenue neutral.  This would be preferable over simply levying a tax.  This way, consumers can actually make a profit by implementing their own energy saving measures, instead of just holding steady or paying their original bill.

Whether it's the Carbon Tax or Cap and Trade, Congress must act soon on establishing some method of reducing our fossil fuel consumption.  Profit is a huge incentive for businesses, and anything that cuts into that profit is an unwelcome burden on businesses.  We need to use financial incentives for our advantage when it comes to energy policy.  Both Cap And Trade and the Carbon Tax do this: they make it worth a business's while to invest in ways to reduce consumption and increase efficiency. If we do this, we can make sure that our commercial and industrial sector of the economy is clean and efficient, paving the way for energy independence.   

Energy Reform Series: Part 3-The Case For Cap and Trade

In an effort to reduce carbon emissions, there are a few policies that the governemnt could enact that would greatly help to achieve this.  Some methods are better than others and each has its own merits, as well as drawbacks.

The first policy we will analyze is the Cap and Trade approach, championed by many Democrats, as well as flip-flopping Republicans.  Cap and Trade's main goal is to steadily reduce carbon emissions and other pollutants across the nation in a cost effective manner.

Each company or polluter will have a limit, or a cap, on the amount of pollution they can emit.  They are issued pollution permits up to that amount.  If need be, restrictions on pollution can get tighter for more greenhouse gas reduction.  They key part of cap and trade is that companies that efficiently and cheaply cut their pollution levels are free to sell their extra credits to the companies that cannot reduce as easily.  Companies have large flexibility in buying and selling permits, achieving the same total reduction, but at a lower overall cost to the economy.

How is this so?  Well, to start out with, we have to consider the alternative command and control policy.  In command and control, each factory is required to make the necessary reductions, regardless of what the overall cost might be.  The government sets clean air regulations, and companies must either upgrade their facilities, bearing whatever costs are involved, or break the law.

The figure above illustrates this point.  In the traditional command and control approach, the government, for example, mandates a 30% reduction in emissions, or 300 tons of CO2.  The cost to reduce for both plants together is $12,000.  In the case of Cap and Trade, on the other hand, the cost to reduce overall is cheaper.  This is because the revenue made from selling pollution permits to another plant adds additional profit.

Cap and Trade is known as a market-based policy, as opposed to a carbon tax, which would be called a corrective tax.  Market-based policies work within the free market system to provide price incentives for companies or even individuals to reduce consumption.

Cap and Trade could prove an effective tool at reducing pollution if adopted.  We encourage Congress to consider using these market-based policies to effect change in the environmental and energy policy reform.  We can use economics to work for us by providing incentives to do the right thing, while still reducing overall costs.